This post is in response to several comments made on a thread at Stand Firm in Faith having to do with the election by the Diocesan Convention of Northern Michigan of the Rev. Kevin Thew-Forrester and the lack of shock to the current votes regarding consent. The nature of the response made it too long, in my opinion, to post there for the sake of the thread of comments, and so I am posting it here. The banner refers to to fact that the consent process is not over until the second and third weeks of July, and yet, this would be the first failure to consent since the early 1930’s (not counting the technical submission errors and thus failure to consent the first time around or South Carolina in 2007) given a majority of “non consents” has already been acquired, and is not likley to be overturned by reconsiderations.
The complaints about the process of election have less to do with having “one candidate for election (and thus not an election, per se)” than the intention of the new bishop’s job description (shared with others in what might be optimistically described as leadership by committee). As I have pointed out in my post at apostolicepiscopalsuccession, the canons for episcopal election allow quite a bit of latitude in the development of the election process. If Convention wants the search committee to bring one candidate then there is nothing stopping them from doing so. If the Convention will only allow nominations from the floor, bypassing a search committee, then so be it (canonical vetting would happen after the election instead of before). Read +Rickel’s (Olympia) explanations for his withholding consent again and note his reaction to the Total Ministry or Mutual Ministry model that had been devised.
This is where the Presiding Bishop comes in, besides the fact she and Kevin had a PhD-prior-to-seminary bond, and they can look at each other eye to eye, height-wise. This has less to do with any common theology on her part than her enthusiastic affirmation of new models of ministry, both publicly and privately, especially considering her experience as bishop in Nevada, the spiritual center of Total Ministry.
All things being biblical and rubrical, she probably could have helped Northern Michigan pull this one out of the fire, despite liberal centrists like +Rickel, and simply and gently chastising these bishops for holding onto old models of episcopacy by not walking in the shoes of someone else’s structural necessity.
So what happened? She, and quite a few others, in my opinion, were caught completely off-guard by the direction the consents began to take. No, not by reading SFiF (she told me 18 months ago that she does not read weblogs because “they are so spiritually toxic”). It was rather the first salvo of consents withheld by +Gulick (Kentucky, Fort Worth), +Marshall (Bethlehem) and +Breidenthal (Southern Ohio), not based on Mutual Ministry models but on the basis of doctrinal and liturgical fault. These are bishops she trusted and held in fellowship, and presumably still does. She could write off the first of the traditional bishops who announced their withholding on the same basis because, as she said aloud in South Carolina last year following a presentation and Q&A with diocesan clergy and others, (and this is not the exact quote) “What we have here is a failure to communicate.” But not the others. And I believe at that point, so early on in the consent process, all she could do was let it ride. Just this last week two different sources have said the Presiding Bishop is not actively attempting to sway consents or convince bodies to reconsider.
I’m sure there was a whole lot of talking going on among west coast bishops, as well as others, as information began to circulate about what these respected theologically minded bishops were saying in their early withholding of consent, and evidence of concern (liturgies, sermons, etc.) was being passed around, some of it force fed by watch dog folks!
When +Mathes (San Diego) came out with his withholding of consent, and included in his explanation the sharing that he had called Forrester, talked to him, and that didn’t help, it put a new twist on understanding Kevin’s character and personality. But I believe the final blow came when +Beisner (Northern California) let everyone know that in a phone call with him Forrester portrayed himself as intransigent regarding liturgical changes, adaption, revision, and rewriting. This is the news that the Standing Committees didn’t want to hear. For that rubrical disregard and rejection alone, Forrester (by +Beisner’s testimony) makes himself liable for presentment. Standing Committees are allergic to episcopal presentments; just the thought of it makes them break out with hives.
I still hold that the essentials of the doctrine of the faith are held by a super majority of bishops, even if only 30 or 35 bishops will hold comprehensive biblical teaching as foundational, notably in this season of the Church regarding human behavior in sexuality. Among the bishops of the center of the theological spectrum, they needed to hear the charges of abandonment of the Trinity, and then they have withheld consent accordingly.
I was not willing to predict the Standing Committee votes (also at apostolicepiscopalsuccession); the election of Standing Committee members can be a quite fickle thing, and thus quite unpredictable. More so, rarely do Standing Committees make theological statements unilaterally. They just let their bishops be verbal, and wince or applaud as the occasion demands. And, if they are doing their job, they will alert the bishop, or counsel and advise the bishop, when the bishop is walking a dangerous line that could lead to charges of presentment for whatever reason (I have some experience in that area). That’s because any Standing Committee member worth their salt knows their purpose in a diocese, and it has to do with the nuts and bolts of ecclesiastical authority. The members must be canonically knowledgable and savvy. “Uphold and advise” is the work. So no Standing Committee, usually very supportive of their bishop, wants to be put in the position of having to even consider the serious matter of canonical presentment for an offense (Pennsylvania is a good example in their struggle with Bp Bennison).
And so with unauthorized liturgical changes and rites already in use, and the refusal to stop doing such, and then with mounting serious doctrinal questions, Standing Committees would see this election and consecration as an ecclesiastical explosion waiting to happen, a hot potato if you will, and thus vote to withhold consent. I believe that is what happened in that tally.
But let’s look at it from a positive point of view. Basically, the Standing Committees of The Episcopal Church in the USA can understand themselves – by withholding consent to the election and consecration of Kevin Forrester – to be gifting the Standing Committee of Northern Michigan with a presentment-free episcopacy.
The Standing Committees of TECUSA need now to see their next gift, and that is intense intercession, that God will pour out the Holy Spirit to assist the Northern Michigan Standing Committee, and all those in the search process including Fr. Kevin Thew Forrester, to receive this gift with thanksgiving, and start anew with grace and humility.
And I will add my two-cents into the next step (barring the unlikely turn-around of the consent process at this point)
to the Northern Michigan Standing Committee:
Invoke the election canon (Title III, Canon 16, Sect. 1 (b)) which allows you to request to place this election into the hands of the House of Bishops of Province V (5), 15 neighboring dioceses which would provide an impartial, balanced, and fair proceeding, informed by your desire for how the process should proceed. This would not be abdication; this is called relying upon the larger Body of Christ. Read the canon and see how this can be a viable option, assisting with nominations, cost, taking advantage of a wealth of experience and wisdom in episcopal elections, and a readable forecast for the consent process, not to mention allaying the fears that many would and already do have (as shared by several concerned voices within the diocese) of a repeat of the same process with the same conclusion. Contact the current President of Province V, Bishop Wendell Gibbs (Michigan).
